Printed from https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_actions_being_taken_to_fulf?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow on March 19, 2018 14:18

You have previously stated that:
“…. dental amalgam is classified as a medical device under the European Community Medical Devices Directive 93/42/ EEC (MDD). The enforcement of the Directive in the UK is the responsibility of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ( MHRA). In conjunction with European counterparts, MHRA monitors the use and effects of dental amalgam."

The cited EC Directive 93/42/EEC states:
“Member States shall take all necessary steps to ensure that devices may be placed on the market and put into service only if they do not compromise the safety and health of patients ….” [Article 2]
and:
“Where a Member State ascertains that the devices referred to in Article 4 (1) and (2) second indent, when correctly installed, maintained and used for their intended purpose, may compromise the health and/or safety of patients, users or, where applicable, other persons, it shall take all appropriate interim measures to withdraw such devices..." (Article 8).

Could you please tell me:

What procedures the DH has in place for undertaking the monitoring which is indicated in that EC Directive 93/42/EEC?

What monitoring activity has been undertaken?

If any patient raised a concern that they had been injured by mercury from installed amalgams, what would the response be to their concern?

Thank you for your reply. But what an outrageous pile of misleading polony it is. It's difficult to know where to start.

For one thing, "dental amalgam has been in use for over 150 years", and yet in reality the modern non-gamma-2 amalgam was only invented circa 1962 and only introduced as standard in the 1970s, with of course no testing despite its 30-50 times higher toxic vapour output. It's only led to a huge epidemic of both autism and adult "workshy" disability claims.

You cite the WHO 2009 document but make no mention that it has been WITHDRAWN following complaints by those who actually attended the meeting and noted this report bore no resemblance to what actually happened. This document by Peterson was quickly concocted so as to get included in the FDA proceedings shortly after, such is the honesty with which dental amalgam gets handled by these Gods Above us.

Furthermore that pseudo-WHO document contains no new review of amalgam safety but merely parrots from the earlier discredited documents some of which you also mention there. As ever you fail to mention the whole load of contrary reports and evidence.

As for your make-believe account of how adverse "incidents" get reported, again it so beggars belief that I'm a bit lost where to begin. How about look at my own "incident" of being "mysteriously" severely disabled for 40 years and having spent SEVEN YEARS unsuccessfully trying to get some sensible response. See my other FOI requests here to Heart of Birmingham PCT and to Birmingham and Solihull MHFT for the reality of how any attempt to raise an adverse "incident" encounters only an endless stream of falsehoods, pseudoscience, evasions, and other words which it is supposedly not appropriate for me to put here. See how the HOBtPCT so concientously COVERS UP cases of amalgam poisoning.

Regarding the status of this request, I consider the answer provided to far from a statement of the whole truth, but rather grossly misleading, and criminally deceitful (albeit the deceit may not be on the part of the person whose name is on the reply). I am well aware from personal experience of the outrageously deceitful way in which the cases of victims such as myself are covered up and the victims left to die or rot in their poisoned state. Sure there is that adverse incident system but there's also an elaborate system of lies (lying that it is a "dental matter", pseudoscience blood and urine tests, and lying that "chronic mercury poisoning is highly unlikely to present in a psychiatic setting") to ensure that no-one ever gets reported to it. And the first half of the reply was a further pile of falsehoods, massive criminal falsehoods for which the authors should be in jail.
So, the status conclusion must be that the DoH is not currently capable of giving an honest answer to this very important question devastating millions of victims.

Within the last twelve months, you wrote to the Department of Health and kindly responded to a survey we sent you. Thank you. Despite a number of service improvements, customer satisfaction rates have fallen this year. We are trying to establish why this has happened and would welcome further feedback from you.

One of the most common criticisms we receive is that we do not answer the question we were asked. This could be for a number of reasons, including:

- not providing the answer the correspondent was asking for;
- not using plain English;
- not fully considering or understanding the question; or
- providing wrong or insufficient information.

If you can spare a few minutes to help us again, we would be grateful if you could answer the attached questions.